Hacker News Reader

"Many alcoholics are born that way. They do not have the same liberty with regard to alcohol as others do. Their agency is impaired when confronted with decisions about alcohol."

I'd really like to see some studies that show this is the case.

Even more, I'd like to see some studies that show this is the case for all the drugs that are currently kept illegal due to reasoning of this sort.

Plenty of drugs that are illegal, like psychedelics, aren't addictive. So such reasoning, even if true for certain other drugs, should not keep the drugs that aren't addictive from being made legal.

As far as alcohol is concerned, are you in favor of going back to Prohibition? Because that's the state that many other drugs are in.

This is a starting point regarding alcoholism and impaired judgment:

https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-co...

There are genetic components to many people’s drinking disorders, but of course everyone is different and the causes of addiction are complex. Anecdotally though, some people are effectively alcoholics from their first drink. I’ve heard the same thing about meth addiction.

I’m not in favor of outright prohibition of any substance. I’m definitely not in favor of the extreme penalties the US imposes for casual drug use. But I think the general rallying cry of “legalize it” is irresponsible.

What should be legalized is 'use' ...anyone should be allowed to inbibe any substance and not be jailed for it...whether it's drugs, arsenic, or tide pods. Stupidity shouldn't be outlawed.

Sellers of 'banned' substances -- drug dealers this segment should be the only one prosecuted and jailed.. others should be recommended to rehab if they can afford it (or medicare for all passes - then it's null whether they can afford or not), and if they choose to go. If they don't then they can hurt/maim/kill themselves all they want.

Of course anyone committing other crimes as a result should still be jailed - like drunk driving...etc..

It's a mental health, not a criminal issue. Once we ruin lives via criminal justice system though they're almost guaranteed to remain addicts for life...

> Sellers of 'banned' substances -- drug dealers this segment should be the only one prosecuted and jailed

Banning substances is a large part of the problem.

In banning specific drugs all we've accomplished is to make the market that still exists dangerous to consumers, by making regulation impossible.

The recent uptick in Fentanyl overdoses is an example, those probably would not have happened if the Fentanyl were coming from a pharmacy in packaging designed for end use, made by a pharmaceutical company, rather than mystery powder from a blackmarket channel.

It happens in very predictable cycles: every so often suppliers flood the market with higher potency or incorrectly "cut" Fentanyl analogs, which can't be used safely, and people who otherwise would have survived instead overdose and die.

Opiates are still dangerous when used incorrectly (and sometimes even when used correctly), but those additional overdoses are largely caused by lack of regulation in the market, because of the ban.

We probably wouldn't even be talking about Fentanyl if it weren't for the ban on Heroin itself. Fentanyl is just easier to illegally manufacture since large poppy fields aren't required, and the potency is extremely high so smuggling large amounts is easier.

Outlawing the sellers creates more and bigger problems than the users.

Large parts of south and central america are awful places because drugs are illegal in the US. Drug and alcohol prohibition create massive cesspools of corruption that left unchecked eventually destabilize governments.

"This is a starting point regarding alcoholism and impaired judgment"

There's nothing in there about people being born alcoholics. Even if there was, it's not a scientific study, nor does it cite any.

"There are genetic components to many people's drinking disorders"

Where is the scientific evidence for this?

"Anecdotally though, some people are effectively alcoholics from their first drink. I’ve heard the same thing about meth addiction."

There are so many urban myths surrounding drugs and drug addiction. I really would think twice before trusting what I hear through the grapevine.

"I’m not in favor of outright prohibition of any substance. I’m definitely not in favor of the extreme penalties the US imposes for casual drug use. But I think the general rallying cry of "legalize it" is irresponsible."

So if prohibition is not the answer for you, and legalization isn't either, what is? What exactly do you propose?

There is some evidence that there might be a genetic component to some drug misuse disorders. Specifically, I know that there's been some research done with nicotine here (either out of Columbia or Radboud, don't really remember). Most researchers are still of the opinion that environmental factors have much more effect on drug misuse disorders than genetic.

The trope of "your first dose will get you hooked" is patently false. There's no evidence that this is true. Anecdotal anything, especially with drugs, doesn't mean anything, and all of these outlier anecdotes are actively damaging to the education of the public with regards to drugs.

Google these genetic polymorphisms + alcoholism that I copy and pasted below, there is your proof :)

Genetic polymorphisms that may increase risk of alcohol abuse Wild type ADH1B1 allele and wild type ALDH21 may increase the risk of alcohol use disorder because no acetaldehyde build up is associated with normally-functioning ADH and ALDH enzymes. Several studies have shown association of ADH1B1 and ALDH21 with alcoholism, especially in the Asian population. Kim et al. studied 1032 Korean subjects and concluded alcohol dependence in 86.5% alcoholic subjects could be attributed to ADH1B1 and or ALDH21 [14]. Tolstrup et al., in a large study involving genotyping of 9080 white men and women from the general population and using the brief Michigan Alcoholism Screening test, concluded that men with ADH1B1/1 genotype (wild type homozygous) had a two to fourfold higher risk of developing alcoholism compared to men with ADH1B2/1 or ADH1B2/2 genotype. The authors further commented that because ADH1B1 allele is found in more than 90% Caucasians and less than 10% East Asians, the population attributable risk of alcoholism by ADHB1/*1 homozygous genotype was 62% among Caucasians compared with 24% among the East Asian population [15].

Google these genetic polymorphisms + alcoholism that I copy and pasted below, there is your proof :)

Genetic polymorphisms that may increase risk of alcohol abuse Wild type ADH1B1 allele and wild type ALDH21 may increase the risk of alcohol use disorder because no acetaldehyde build up is associated with normally-functioning ADH and ALDH enzymes. Several studies have shown association of ADH1B1 and ALDH21 with alcoholism, especially in the Asian population. Kim et al. studied 1032 Korean subjects and concluded alcohol dependence in 86.5% alcoholic subjects could be attributed to ADH1B1 and or ALDH21 [14]. Tolstrup et al., in a large study involving genotyping of 9080 white men and women from the general population and using the brief Michigan Alcoholism Screening test, concluded that men with ADH1B1/1 genotype (wild type homozygous) had a two to fourfold higher risk of developing alcoholism compared to men with ADH1B2/1 or ADH1B2/2 genotype. The authors further commented that because ADH1B1 allele is found in more than 90% Caucasians and less than 10% East Asians, the population attributable risk of alcoholism by ADHB1/*1 homozygous genotype was 62% among Caucasians compared with 24% among the East Asian population [15].

Thanks for that. However, those studies only show that a certain gene is more prevalent in alcoholics, not that people with that gene "do not have the same liberty with regard to alcohol as others do" nor that "their agency is impaired when confronted with decisions about alcohol".

Also, I still don't see any studies showing this for any of the other drugs that have actually been made illegal, which would be more to the point.

Google these genetic polymorphisms + alcoholism that I copy and pasted below, there is your proof :)

Genetic polymorphisms that may increase risk of alcohol abuse Wild type ADH1B1 allele and wild type ALDH21 may increase the risk of alcohol use disorder because no acetaldehyde build up is associated with normally-functioning ADH and ALDH enzymes. Several studies have shown association of ADH1B1 and ALDH21 with alcoholism, especially in the Asian population. Kim et al. studied 1032 Korean subjects and concluded alcohol dependence in 86.5% alcoholic subjects could be attributed to ADH1B1 and or ALDH21 [14]. Tolstrup et al., in a large study involving genotyping of 9080 white men and women from the general population and using the brief Michigan Alcoholism Screening test, concluded that men with ADH1B1/1 genotype (wild type homozygous) had a two to fourfold higher risk of developing alcoholism compared to men with ADH1B2/1 or ADH1B2/2 genotype. The authors further commented that because ADH1B1 allele is found in more than 90% Caucasians and less than 10% East Asians, the population attributable risk of alcoholism by ADHB1/*1 homozygous genotype was 62% among Caucasians compared with 24% among the East Asian population [15].

Google these genetic polymorphisms + alcoholism that I copy and pasted below, there is your proof :)

Genetic polymorphisms that may increase risk of alcohol abuse Wild type ADH1B1 allele and wild type ALDH21 may increase the risk of alcohol use disorder because no acetaldehyde build up is associated with normally-functioning ADH and ALDH enzymes. Several studies have shown association of ADH1B1 and ALDH21 with alcoholism, especially in the Asian population. Kim et al. studied 1032 Korean subjects and concluded alcohol dependence in 86.5% alcoholic subjects could be attributed to ADH1B1 and or ALDH21 [14]. Tolstrup et al., in a large study involving genotyping of 9080 white men and women from the general population and using the brief Michigan Alcoholism Screening test, concluded that men with ADH1B1/1 genotype (wild type homozygous) had a two to fourfold higher risk of developing alcoholism compared to men with ADH1B2/1 or ADH1B2/2 genotype. The authors further commented that because ADH1B1 allele is found in more than 90% Caucasians and less than 10% East Asians, the population attributable risk of alcoholism by ADHB1/*1 homozygous genotype was 62% among Caucasians compared with 24% among the East Asian population [15].

Legalize, educate, regulate, tax and treat abuse as a medical problem. Subsidize the medical treatment and sponsor research for mitigating abuse from the tax revenue.

People will pay obscenely high taxes on this stuff if it’s made legal.

Dismember the government apparatus setup to deprive so many of their liberties.

Abuse as a medical problem??? No way. You do not allow people to take a harmful substance then say “oh and if you get sick we will pay for it”.

Sugar, etc

So people in America used to cook with lard. Until someone said “oh no lard is bad people are getting fat” so they banned lard. And everything tasted like shit so they substituted lard with sugar. Now America is one of the fattest nations on earth. Go figure.

People already take it.

People already get sick.

Tax payers already pickup their healthcare bills.

And that is wrong. The west is backwards in this regard. In the UK, Australia, NZ, you can get paid with tax payers money for choosing to not work... So someone works hard to fund your life. Someone works hard to pay your bills for your choice to smoke. Someone works hard to pay your bills for your choice to do drugs and get addicted.

It’s not always that simple. The opioid epidemic is largely because people use legal pain killers as a gateway drug.

Think about it from an investment perspective. The addict has typically had some semblance of public education. That cost tax payers money. Let’s call it $40k over 18 years (12 grades). That investment needs to be recouped by society for it to pay off.

Now this person has gotten addicted to drugs. We could do nothing and they might commit crimes to fund their habit and hurt innocent people but then we have to imprison them at great cost to society and we lose more potential tax revenue and productivity from the potential loss of life of victims. We could leave the addicts alone and hope they die peacefully from their addiction, knowing we lose the investment (not to mention it calls into question our morality for letting someone die when we have the resources to save them). In reality though addicts get more desperate as they get more addicted and are more likely to turn to crime. We could be proactive and imprison them at great cost to society for being addicts. During which time they gain an education of criminal behavior that helps them fall deeper into criminal activity to support their addiction.

Or we could realize that we just need to treat addicts as medical patients who can be rehabilitated if given proper treatment. This costs society money up front but helps rehabilitate addicts so they can become productive citizens again. This is not revolutionary.

> It’s not always that simple. The opioid epidemic is largely because people use legal pain killers as a gateway drug.

This problem pretty much only exists in America. Because you can literally write fake prescriptions and get them filled, or buy them off gumtree.

The problem exists elsewhere. America tracks it better than most countries.

The drug war is Jim Crow 2.0 and has failed to do anything than further degrade the economic perspective of minority populations while simultaneously costing tax payers a fortune. It’s a shameful and disgusting set of policy that needs to be terminated.

> The problem exists elsewhere. America tracks it better than most countries.

America is terrible at tracking anything. It doesn't even have a central marriage registry. It is literally the only country in the world where you cannot request for a certificate of impediment for marriage.

Doctor's write prescriptions for non-existent symptoms and get paid under the table by patients to do so. And filling in prescriptions doesn't require additional checks from a pharmacy.

America, like always, fights the wrong battles. Instead of fixing the system, it tries to patch it at either end. No one tries to resolve problems in America. It's no different from the abysmal education system & health care system.

We've got some non trivial percentage of America hooked on legal opioids as an experiment. That's going well. Seems smart to get another good pct hooked on h. And before you say the price will drop... My understanding is weed is more expensive per intoxicating amount than alcohol in seattle. So let's get everyone hooked and in debt, seems like a different route to the same place. They won't be in jail but they'll be struggling financially just the same.

But they'll at least get treatment. Which we can also charge for.

Apparently I've angered the libertarians who can't concieve of Any bad consequences to anything. Look I Live in Seattle and don't see any bad side to the mj legalization currently. I also think we should have heroin treatment in many areas. And opioid. Doesn't mean I think you should be able to buy h when you hit 18. I know plenty of people who use alcohol and mj responsibly. Many who don't. I have anecdotal data on opiods and lots only know one person who used h personally and that didn't go well. More for meth, most had some pretty severe problems before or because of it.

But apparently I can't disagree with you, only the pure ideals are acceptable.

"My understanding is weed is more expensive per intoxicating amount than alcohol in seattle."

What "intoxicating amount" would that be?

A single beer might get a teetotaler drunk, while it might take a six pack or more to get an alcoholic drunk. The same goes for smoking cannabis. One hit might get someone with no tolerance high, but someone with a high tolerance might need much more. That doesn't even begin to take in to account all of the different varieties of cannabis or different types of alcohol, which could have quite varied potencies.

You can actually kind of compare different alcohols by the percentage of pure ethanol in them, and with cannabis you can compare the percentage of THC, but there are so many other compounds in cannabis that can have an effect on your intoxication that they're really difficult to compare in a standardized way.

Even when sticking to one particular alcohol or cannabis variety prices vary tremendously based on brand and where they're bought (ex: a beer at the grocery store will cost much less than one at some trendy bar, a mass-produced generic beer vs some hand-made microbrew, etc).

When I hear such comparisons I really have to question what they're actually comparing and why they're comparing it and not something completely different. For alcohol vs cannabis prices, I struggle to understand how there can be any comparison.

"So let's get everyone hooked and in debt"

How many people go in to debt buying legal cannabis? If money's such a problem for them, it's trivial to just grow your own for free: it's a weed.

Anyway, if your goal is to keep people from going in to debt, the last thing you should be for is prohibition, which astronomically increases the cost of drugs far past their legal price.

"Doesn't mean I think you should be able to buy h when you hit 18."

Well, whether you think you should be able to or not, you can. Making drugs illegal has flatly failed to stop their availability. Like it or not, if you want them, it's not hard to get them.

The question is whether the state should continue to spend billions ruining people's lives by throwing them in jail or outright killing them during raids, breaking up families, propping up organized crime with illegal drug profits, corrupting the judicial and political system, etc.

To me it doesn't make sense, especially as it's so ineffective or even counterproductive (as people are drawn to the forbidden) in preventing drug use.

> My understanding is weed is more expensive per intoxicating amount than alcohol in seattle

I'm a Seattle resident. No way that's correct. The pot is way, way cheaper.

Using fairly "middle class" products, percentage of a $15-20 gram that has intoxicating value is lower in dollar value than a draft beer ($6).

Even focusing strictly on value products, there's no single-unit alcohol product (40oz, tall boy, etc) that can compete against the common $3 preroll.

You can get 37.5 ounces of Four Loko for $3 (1.5 cans), at 12% ABV you're getting 4.5 ounces of ethanol which is equivalent to 9 1.5 oz 80 proof shots. This will absolutely destroy you compared to a half gram preroll joint filled with shake.

Prison is pretty life destroying pretty much anyone not a danger to others would be better off outside a cell. Also poor people generally aren't poor because they smoke too much marijuana it's not even remotely addictive like that.

> we must face the social implications of substance abuse

True. But we must also face up to the costs of regulation. The illegality of recreational drugs delivers $1 trillion into the hands of organized crime per annum, for example. The corruption, the adulterated product, the incentives to hook people, destruction of whole Latin American countries, etc etc.

I am not accusing you of this, but there is often an implicit assumption that regulations can be put in place for no cost. An assumption that is often wildly wrong.

On the other hand, regulation of alcohol has not gone well historically, with people arguably worse off with very stringent controls. Artificial scarcity has resulted in predictable increases in black markets and crime, reduction in safety, and boosts to the prison industrial complex.

We seem to have reached a middle ground, here in most parts of the US. Alcohol is taxed and regulated, the products are relatively safe (no worries about methanol poisoning), and the black market is quite small.

Effective regulation on alcohol has an upper limit due to how easy it is to make. Cannabis has this too, but you still need either a place with visible sunlight (which can probably be easily seen) or an indoor place using a lot of electricity/producing a lot of heat, plus the seeds. You only need sugar and yeast to make alcohol, and you can do it in a well hidden place without using a lot of energy

It’s trivially easy to make enough weed for personal consumption; certainly much easier than making alcohol (safely). The thing that’s hard is growing enough to sell.

You've newer brewed your own beer, cider, wine or sugar wine, have you?

You've never grown weed, have you? It's called weed for a reason.

Both are easy to make.

>Many alcoholics are born that way. They do not have the same liberty with regard to alcohol as others do.

This is a patronizing and disempowering statement with no scientific basis.

An important factor to consider in seeking to regulate such things is the ease with which they can be produced. Marijuana is a weed and wine is fermented grape. And what about the obesity epidemic? I’m inclined to agree with your views, but there is a practical aspect that needs to balanced against the desire for more effective public policy.

Many diabetics are born that way. Shall we ban sugar? Alcoholism is a disease, not a crime.

"if you are going to be more permissive in what people can legally acquire, I think that we have a moral obligation to provide intervention and support services for individuals affected by substance abuse. I don’t see a lot of people actually talking about this aspect of decriminalization in the US."

Actually most people involved in the activism and policy front talk about this all the time. Some examples include citing the portugal diversion panels following decriminalization or the safe injection sites and needle exchange sites in the czech republic again following decriminalization there or insite/onsite the colocated safe injection site and rehab center in vancouver as models for the US to follow for harm reduction.

In addition other people in the US are making harm reduction fact based high school drug education curricula as a way to educate people about drugs.

I can't disagree with your position more, I'm afraid. If the choice is between allowing access for all or access none, I think we need to swallow the bitter pill and, accepting that some will suffer, choose the latter.

Out of curiosity, would you support a liberalization of drugs if we were able to operate a system of selective prohibition, where alcoholics and drug addicts could have access revoked?

You simply can't do what you suggest. We tried banning alcohol once. It did reduce the number of alcoholics. It also created massive organized crime syndicates that routinely murdered people. Banning vice always creates black markets, those markets tend to have issues spilling violence into the society around them.